26. People v.

Mahinay Was there a violation of the rights of the accused when

he executed the said confession?
G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1999
Ruling: No
TOPIC: RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION Ratio:
Summary: Since the accused was duly informed about his rights,
as required by his right to be informed, such as his right to
This case is an automatic review of the decision of the remain silent and his right to be assisted by a competent
Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding the accused Mahinay counsel. The same was also fully explained to him as
guilty of rape. The SC agrees does not find any error in the evidenced by the testimony of the assisting counsel. The said
judgement of the RTC since the extrajudicial confession he confession is therefore admissible and thus can be used by the
made was assisted by counsel and he was duly informed of his prosecution against the accused. He cannot also question the
rights. same since it was he himself that executed it.
Doctrine:
The accused has the right to be informed about his
rights and he must be able to duly exercise the same. In cases
where the accused was duly informed and thereafter executed
an extrajudicial admission with the assistance of a counsel,
such admission is admissible as evidence in court
Facts:
Mahinay was working as a houseboy of Isip in
Valenzuela City when he raped the child who was a neighbour
of his employer. After which he fled the area leading to his
arrest in Batangas. During the custodial investigation after
being duly informed of his rights and while assisted by counsel
he executed an extrajudicial confession which contains his
admission of guilt. The said confession was eventually used by
the prosecution as evidence to prove that he did rape the
victim. Thus leading to his conviction.
Relevant Issue: